The seventeenth century accounts of the masters of the revels

3095
S3

Stopes, Charlotte Carmichae.
'Ahe seventeenth century

accounts of the Master of the

Revels .

BB

1

THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION

THE SEVENTEENTH CEN-
TURY ACCOUNTS OF THE
MASTERS OF THE REVELS

BY

CHARLOTTE (cARMICHAELX STOPES

v-

LONDON

PUBLISHED FOR THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION

BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

AMEN CORNER, LONDON, B.C.

1922

Price ••£> Shillings net

Shakespeare Association Papers

i . Shakespeare Day. Report of Meeting held
on May 3, 1913, to promote the Annual
Observance of Shakespeare Day. 1917*
i/- net. (Out of print.)

2. The Problem of c The Merry Wives of
Windsor* by the Rt. Hon. J. M. ROBERT-
SON, M.P. 1919. 1/6 net.

3. Shakespeare and his Welsh CharaSlers, by
ARTHUR E. Hughes. 1919. (Out of print.)

4 . Th e Author sh ip of c The Tarn ing of a Sh rew, '

' The Famous Victories of Henry VJ and the
additions to Marlowe's c Fa us t us ,' by H.
DUGDALE SYKES. 1920. 1/6 net.

5 . Shakespeare s c Tempest ' as originally pro-

duced at Court, by ERNEST LAW. 1920.
1/6 net.

6. The Seventeenth Century Accounts of the
Masters of the Revels, by CHARLOTTE CAR-
MICHAEL STOPES. 1922. 2 /- net.

7. The Beginnings of the English Secular and
Romantic Drama, by ARTHUR W. REED.
1922. 2/- net.

8. Dry den as an Adapter of Shakespeare, by
ALLARDYCE NICOLL. 1922. 2/- net.

PUBLISHED BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
D D AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.G.

1 f\ 01 C Of all Booksellers

707G73

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

ACCOUNTS OF THE MASTERS OF

THE REVELS

BY

MRS. CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES

Pa, *or He,

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

ACCOUNTS OF THE MASTERS OF

THE REVELS.

discussions which have taken place over the

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS OF THE MASTER OF

THE REVELS'

CORRIGENDA

p. 4, 5th line from foot, read < Rocke 'for ' blocke ' ;

„ 3rd „ „ „ *Cariclea'/0r 'Carislea';

p. 8, 2 1st „ top, „ <Mayde';6r 'Mayds';

„ 5fh „ foot, „ < Novembar 'y»r * November';

„ 3rd „ „ „ <att'/*r<at.'
p. 28, 22nd „ top „ * this ' for « its.'

on those of the Seventeenth Century. In the Audit
Office, Accounts Various, Bundle 1213,' we still can
find the following books, clean and clear :

1. 1570- 1 to 1572, bills of expenses, with a list of the names

of plays —

2. 1572-3, bills of expenses, no list of plays.

3. 1573-4, „ „ a list of plays.
4- i574-5> » no list of plays.

1 Now removed to A. O. Ill, 1907.

— I

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

ACCOUNTS OF THE MASTERS OF

THE REVELS.

THE discussions which have taken place over the
genuineness of some of the documents concerning
the Revels have hitherto been held in the subjective
field, that is, the opinion of expert Archivists. These
have not been able to agree among themselves. I have
therefore asked leave to shift the Cause to another Court,
to try it by another method, the objective, working by
the force of facts, in determining the truth of Opinion.
Some of the Revels' Accounts for the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries have been preserved, the earlier
ones at Loseley, a few at the British Museum, but the
bulk of the series remains in the Public Record Office,
unfortunately, not by any means complete. Professor
Feuillerat of Rennes has done all he could to make them
more so, by bringing together, for the use of students, all
the papers which refer to them from other departments,
in his 'Office of the Revels in the time of Queen
Elizabeth.' I attempt first to note a few points in the
Sixteenth Century Account Books which throw light
on those of the Seventeenth Century. In the Audit
Office, Accounts Various, Bundle 1213,' we still can
find the following books, clean and clear :

1. 1 570-1 to 1572, bills of expenses, with a list of the names

of plays —

2. 1572-3, bills of expenses, no list of plays.

3. 1573-4, „ „ a list of plays.
4- i574-5> » » no list of plays.

...«•«««••

1 Now removed to A. O. Ill, 1907.

4 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

5. 1576-7, bills of expenses, list of plays.

6. Feb., 1577-8-9, bills of expenses, list of plays. Tilney.

7. ist Nov., 1579-181 Nov., 1580, bills of expenses, list of

plays.

8. ist Nov., 1580-3151 Oct., 1581, bills of expenses, list of

plays.

9. ist Nov., 1582-3151 Oft., 1583, bills of expenses, list of

plays.

10. 3 ist Oct., 1 5 84-3 ist Oct., 15 — , bills of expenses, list of

plays.

1 1 . A duplicate of this, not quite so perfect.

12. (3 ist Oct., 1587-15! Nov., 1588, no list of plays.

< A duplicate of this in British Museum, Lansd. MS. 59,
art. 21.

Up to number 1 1 these are written on very large folio
sheets, No. 12 is little more than half size, and is not
so complete. Someone, probably the Auditor, has
written against it on the first page, 'The names of the
plaies wold be expressed,' and against the last page,
'The parcells were wount to be more particularly ex-
pressed.' That set of eleven account books give us
much information regarding the development of the
Court Drama. The advance in the Dramatists, the
Plays, the Properties go on together. In the first book
John Carow's 'properties' shew traces of some old
'miracle play' in his entry. 'Bodyes of men in
timber ; Dishes for Devil's eyes, Hell and Hell mouth.'
In the books not completed by a list of names one
can still gather something of the subjects performed
from the expenses, as in 1 572-3, ' For making of a
Chariott xiiij foote long and viij foote brode with a
blocke upon it and a fountayne therein, with the fur-
nishing and garnishing thereof for Apollo and the nine
Muses.' Again, ' 2 speares for the play of Carislea
. . . an awlter for Theagenes.' 'A tree of Holly for
Dutton's play, . . . and other trees for the Forest.'

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 5

'Comfits for flakes of Yse and Hayle Stones in the
Masque of Janus.' 'Arnold the painter for the picture
of Andromeda.' Though none of the books give a list
of the poets, the names of some are incidentally men-
tioned, as in 1574-5, 'A periwig of haire for King
Xerxus his sister, in Farrants play . . .' ' Leashes,
doghookes, bawdricks for the Homes in Hunneyes
play.' There are even a good many names of plays to
be gleaned, as 'When my Lord Chamberlain's players
did shew the History of Fedrastus and Phigor and
Lucia.' 'When my Lord of Leicesters men shewed the
matter of Panecia.' 'When my Lord Clynton's players
rehearsed a matter called Pretextus'

The 'book' for the year 1587-8, we have seen, does
not yield us the names of its plays nor much other
material to infer them. It may have been confused by
pressure through the absorption in Armada affairs. Be
that as it may, no other account of this series has been
preserved until after the death of Elizabeth. It is very
remarkable how often records fail us, just when they
are most needed, for the Life of Shakespeare ! There
is only one personal link which kept up the connection
of those early Court-plays, with later modes under which
we know plays to have been performed, only one person
who lived through and direcled them from the infancy
of the Drama, to its ripe perfection under James, and
he has been too little noted. Edmund Tilney was ap-
pointed Master of the Revels for Life on 24th July,
1579 (Pat. Rolls 21, Eliz. p. 7, m. 8). The Master-
ship of the Revels was an office of great dignity ; the
Heralds placed its holder in order of precedence, to rank
with the Lieutenant of the Tower (see Bodleian Library,
Tanner MSS. clxviii, p. I2ov). For his powers see
Patent Office Rolls 1606 (Watson's Rolls, m. 34, No.
46). For this article it is sufficient to remember that
he had to choose, reform, and set on plays ; to superin-
tend his inferior officers, The Clerk Comptroller, The

6 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

Clerk, and the Yeoman, and to check the work and
the bills of the different workmen in the various de-
partments. He enters, in 1582-3 — 'Edmund Tyllney
Esquire, Master of the Office, being sente for to the
Courte by letter from Mr. Secretary dated the loth of
Marche 1582-3. To choose out A companie of Players
for her Majestic,' and adds 'the expenses of himself and
his horse' in executing this commission.1 This was
before the arrival of Shakespeare in London. But
Shakespeare did come. No one seems to have thought
of noting the important relations which must have
existed between these two men, or try to realise their
influence upon each other. The power of the Censor
was one of the three main external limitations of Shake-
speare's tastes and genius, the two others being, the
a<5ling powers of his company at the time of his plan-
ning a play, and the taste of the audience.

It is hardly likely that Mr. Tilney knew anything
of Shakespeare when the Queen made her progress to
Cowdray and Titchfield in 1591, and came to dine with
him at Leatherhead on the way home. We know that
she did so, because The Treasurer of the Chamber re-
cords the expenses of preparation, 'for making ready
at Mr. Tilney 's House at Leatherheyde for her Majestic
to dine at' (Dec. Ace. Treas. Chamb. Audit Office,
Bundle 385, Roll 29). The remainder of the story can
be found in my 'Life of Southampton,' page 46 et seg.
, One can well imagine Tilney being severe, like
Robert Greene, on the young rustic who had begun,
after an apprenticeship as a performer, as a patcher of
plays ; his intense surprise when this same rustic shewed
that he needed no ' borrowed feathers,' but could grow
a goodly crop of his own. 'Venus and Adonis' ap-
peared, licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
patronised by the popular and critical young Earl of

1 This must have had an enormous influence on the fortunes of the
other men's and children's companies.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 7

Southampton, welcomed by all readers, high and low,
scholars and poets alike. Thereafter would certainly
set in interesting currents between these two men, and
they would be sure to become friends in their great
work of teaching the English people what they ought to like.
An almost equal surprise would possess Tilney's soul
when Meres' Book came out in 1598, comparing the
Shakespeare he had reformed with the greatest writers
of classical times. They were prepared to work to-
gether when James came into power and took the poet
into his Royal Service, thus raising him in social status.
The accession of James brings us to the 'Seventeenth
Century Revels' Books.' These are, unfortunately, even
less regularly consecutive than those of the sixteenth
century. There are eighteen books in all, consisting of:

1. 1504-5, with a list of plays, players and poets.

2. 1611-12, with a list of plays and players.

3. 1623-4, smaller folio, no lists.

4. 1630-1, „ „ „

5. 1631-2, „ „ „

6- 1632-3, „ „ „

7- 1633-4, „ „ „

8. 1634-5, „ „ „

9. 1632-5 (i) Warrant for extra payment for extra work done

in September for 3 years.

(2) List of plays, 1636-7.

(3) Warrant for payment of these plays. No work-

men's or other expenses noted.

10. 1 660- 1, smaller folio, no lists.

11. 1661-2, „ „ „

12. 1662-3, » » »

13. 1663-4, „ „ „

14. 1664-5, » » »

15. 1666-7, „ „ „

1 6. 1667-8, „ „ „

17. 1668-9, „ „ „

1 8. 1669-70, „ „ „

None of these are written on large folio sheets like
those of the sixteenth century, none of them furnish us

8 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

with similar gossipy general information, only three
of these have lists attached, numbers i and 2, and
number 9. But the latter, though it has often been
called a 'Revels' Book,' is not a book at all, even in the
limited sense in which the other c Books' can be so
distinguished. It contains one warrant dated 1635 and
signed by Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery
as Lord Chamberlain, which is not connected by any
link with the other two documents. One of these is a
loose, unsigned list of twenty-two plays, the other is a
warrant also signed by Pembroke and Montgomery, for
the payment of the amount allowed for the performance
of twenty-two plays. The three were unconnected with
each other, when I first saw them. There are so
many reasons to suspect the genuineness of these three
lists, that I felt I must make a special investigation
into facts concerning them. Having done so lately,
by spending, for the third time, six months careful
work on the subject, it seems worth recording the
result, when we remember, that, except in one case,
'the proude Mayds,' we have no authority, beyond
these lists, for the performances of certain plays at
the stated dates, or even at the given seasons. To
facilitate understanding, the tables themselves should
be reproduced, as far as print allows.

THE REVELLS BOOKE. ANO. 1605.

The Accompte of the Office of the
Reveles of this whole yeres Charge in
Ano 1 604 ; untell the last of October
1605.

/j\ The Plaiers. Hallamas Day being the first of Novem- The Poetes
?J theDPn8s ber A Play in the Banketinge House |wuhi(* ma

Matis rlaiers. . TTTU-^I- ii 11 j T-L TV/I rxr • itheplaies.

at Whithall called The Mour of Veins, i

(2) By his Matis The Sunday followinge A PJay of the
Plaiers. Merry wiues of Winsor.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 9

his Matis
Plaiers.

By his Matis
Plaiers.

Matis Plaiers.

The Boyes of
theChapell.

By his Matis
Plaiers.

(8) By his Matis
Plaiers.

(a) By his Matis

Plaiers.

(lo) By his Matis

Plaiers.

(12) By his Matis

Plaiers.

(13) By his Matis
(14)" By his Matis

Plaiers.

On St Stiuens night in the Hall A Play
called Mesur for Mesur.

On St Jons night A maske with Musike
presented by the Erl of Penbrok, the
Lord Willowbie and six Knights more
of the Courte.

On Iriosents Night The plaie of Errors.

On Sunday following A plaie caled How
to larne of a woman to woo.

On Newers Night A playe called All
Foulles.

Betwin Newers Day And Twelfe Day
A play of Loues Labours Lost.

On Twelfe Night The Queens Matis
Maske of Moures with Aleuen Lay-
dies of Honnor to Accupayney her
Matie which cam in great showes of
Devises which they satt in with ex-
selent musike.

On the 7 of January ws played the play
on Henry the fift.

The 8 of January A play cauled Euery
on out of his Umor.

On Candlemas night A playe Euery one
in his Umor.

The Sunday following A playe provided
and discharged.

On Shroue Sunday A play of the Mar-
thant of veins.

On Shroue Monday A Tragidye of The
Spanish Maz :

On Shrouetusday A playe cauled The

com-

Shaxberd.

Shaxberd.
Hewood.

By George
Chapman.

Shaxberd.

Shaxberd.

Martchant of Venis Againe
manded by the Kings Matie.

This series of ' Revells Books,' being the Particular or
Ledger Books of the Office, enumerating each item in

1 The numerals are mine for references.

io SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

each department which helped to make up the sum
total of the expenses, was each in turn handed over to
the Auditors, who engrossed the accounts, modified the
language, and declared it upon oath, before some great
court official, as the Lord Treasurer or the Lord
Chancellor, who had power to give them a warrant for
payment. The Players being the King's Grooms of the
Chamber, seem to have had their accounts declared
before a Committee of the Privy Council, who also gave
them a warrant for payment. All these warrants were
then handed to the Treasurer of the Chamber, who paid
them, retaining the warrants. Therefore, when the
Treasurer of the Chamber declared his accounts of the
money he had spent, they must agree with the State-
ments of the Ledger Books.

The Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the
Chamber are preserved in two forms — that of the
Audit Office on paper and that of the Pipe Office
on parchment. They should agree in every detail.
Therefore, they may be used as a means of checking
backwards the statements made in the Revels' Office
Accounts. Thus in the first entry :

(i) Stating that The Moor of Venice (supposed to be
Othello] was performed in the Banqueting House on the
ist November, 1604, we can turn to the payment made
for that performance by the Treasurer of the Chamber
and some of the others.

To John Hemmings one of the Kings Majesties players on
the Counsells Warrant dated at Whitehall 2ist January,
1604-5, f°r tne Paynes and expenses of himself and the rest of
his company, for presenting 6 interludes or plays before his
Majestic viz, on All Saints day at night one, on the Sunday
at night following being the 4th of November 1604 one; on
St. Stephens day at night; one on Innocent's Day at night
and one on the yth and 8th days of January for euerie play
20 nobles the play and his Majesties reward 5 nobles . . .
in all £60.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS, n

Comparing this list of payments with the Play List
above, we see that there was a play performed on
ist November that year; there is no further evidence
that it was Othello; and proof positive is forthcoming
that it was not performed in the Banqueting House.
Whenever the King removed, some groom of his
chamber was sent in advance of him, to prepare the
rooms which he would be using. Their charges, being
of the household, were guaranteed by the Lord Cham-
berlain direct, and appear in a separate part of the
account. There we can find

To George Pollard for . . . making ready for the King &
Queen at Whitehall, . . . 1 6 days October, 1 604. . . . For
making ready the Create Chamber at Whitehall for the King's
Majestic to see the plaies ... by the space of two dales
mense Nouembris, 1 604 . . . for making readie the Banquet-
ing House at Whitehall for the King's Majestic againste the
plaie, by the space of four daies mense Nouembris, 1 604.

As the Revels' season began on 3ist October, Pollard
might be justified in reckoning his first two days from
the morning of 3ist October till the evening of
ist November as in November. But by no possible
arithmetical process could he squeeze in four days of
preparation of the Banqueting House into that Novem-
ber, so if Othello were played on that day (which is
doubtful), it is certain that it was not played in the
Banqueting House. Another point may be remembered
in the Declared Account, as given above. It always
distinguishes between day and night performances.
The List, on the contrary, makes no such distinction.
It says Hallamas Day. The Declared Accounts say
' All Saints Day at night? How were the Treasurers
of the Chamber to be supposed to know whether it
was an afternoon or evening performance, if the Master
of the Revels did not tell them ?

(2) The Declared Accounts shew that there was a

12 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

play on the Sunday following, it might have been The
Merry Wives of Windsor, there is no further proof.
But again it may be noted it was not played on
Sunday, but on c Monday at night' following, being the
4th November.

(6) This item requires a double correction. The
Choristers of the Chapel were not called ' Boys,' but
1 Children ' ; had they then played as ' Children of the
Chapel,' the payment would have been made to their
Master, Nathaniel Giles, but it was paid to ' Samuel
Daniel and Henrie Evans.' ... for the ' Queen's
Majesties Children of the Revels,' and it was paid for
' 2 plaies,' both before the King, one on ' New Yeres
Day at night, and the other on the 3rd day of January.'
But more is meant than here meets the eye. Contem-
porary clerks would know that on 3Oth January, 1603-4,
Evans, Kirkham, Kendal and others had a license for
bringing Children up to be able to perform plays, these
Children to be called ' The Children of the Queen's
Revels.' Samuel Daniel was to superintend these, to
' allow them.' This syndicate was allowed to use as a
nucleus those of the Children of the Chapel Royal who
were already trained for acting. The young 'company'
performed under their new name on 2oth February,
1603-4. On i /th September, 1604, Nathaniel Giles, in
consolation for his losses thereby, had a warrant allowed
him ' to take up children ' to recruit his choristers. So it
is clear the clerk would not deprive the young performers
of the glory of their new name, had he really entered this
performance. Further, he would not have forgotten
that they played a second time on the 3rd January, so
this gives us two errors against the scribe. It may be
noted that the 3rd January performance displeased the
Court, and 'the Children of fhe Queen's Revels' were
inhibited, and never played again ; so that ' Rosseter,' one
of the above syndicate, when he wished to utilise 'The
Children ' in the following year, boldly calls them then

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 13

'the Children of the Chapel' to steer clear of the
inhibited Company's name.

(7) This entry requires even more serious correction.
No such phrase was ever used in the 'Revels' Books' as
this indefinite guess 'betwin' the dates. The De-
clared Accounts above show that the King's Players did
not play before the King at any date between New
Year's Day and Twelfth Night, which was the 6th
January. They played on the day after, and the day
after that again, that is the yth and 8th January. If
they did not play it, no one else dare do so, for Love's
Labours Lost was the property of the King's Company.
They not only did not play that play, but they did not
perform any play, nor did anybody else during that
period. This is proved by the very ' Revels' Book '
whose list I am criticising, for in giving the expenses
of the men who helped the performers they include
'To 6 men on New Yeres Day ; to 6 men on Twelfth
Eve and Twelfth Day ; to 4 men on Monday and
Tuesday following' — i.e. 7th and 8th January. That
is, no help was required between the dates of New
Year's Day and Twelfth Eve. I did not fail to notice
that the same stricture might cover the second perform-
ance of the Children of the Queen's Revels, which was
on 3rd January, and between these dates. But it is
possible that Daniel and Evans might have worked
their own performance by the help of other 'children'
for themselves. They were at least paid for a perform-
ance on that date, and it was not 'Love's Labours Lost'
To save further discussion I must, however, explain
that there was a performance of Love's Labours Lost
that season, though not before the King and not on
that date. The circumstances were peculiar. After a
gay season the King's second son was created Duke of
York on Twelfth Day, in the evening the Queen dis-
played her costly Masque ; the King heard the plays on
the 7th and 8th January, and he was exhausted. On

V

i4 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

the gth he wrote the Privy Council that he must have
some recreation, and was about to go to Royston to
secure it. But he enjoined them to go on with their
meetings at the Queen's Court and execute business.
A letter in the handwriting of Thomas Phillips on the
i oth January implies that the festivities were all over,
because the King had left. But the Queen had her
brother with her, and wanted to amuse him. Sir
Robert Cecil (then Lord Cranborne) and the Earl of
Southampton held offices under the Queen, and called
themselves her servants. They naturally desired to
please her. Walter Cope was trying to help Lord
Cranborne to find a suitable play to produce before
her, and he wrote the memorable letter :

To Viscount Cranborne — Sir, I haue sent and bene all thys
morning huntyng for players juglers, and suche kinde of
Creatures, but fynde them hard to finde ; wherefore leauing
notes for them to seek me Burbage ys come and sayes there
is no new playe that the Queen hath not scene, but they haue
reuyued an olde one cawled Loue's Labour Loste which for
wytt and mirthe he sayes will please her exceedingly. And
thys ys apointed to be playd tomorrowe night at my Lord of
Southampton's, unless you send a wrytt to remoue the Corpus
cum Causa to your howse in the Strande. Burbage ys my mes-
senger ready attending your pleasure. Youers most humbly

From your Librarye. WALTER COPE.

To the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Cranborne at
the Court.1

This letter is undated, but a date can be found for it.2
Cranborne did not appropriate that play ; it was duly

1 One objection has been made that Cunningham could not have
seen Cope's letter, as it was not known until 1872, after his death.
That is not the case. It was not printed until then, in the Report of
the Historical MSS. Commission. But the Cecil Papers were well
known to scholars before that date, as Secretaries superintended the
Library at Hatfield and students were admitted to study the reigns of
Elizabeth and James. Cunningham might certainly have been among
these visitors. (See 'Records of Royalty,' by Charles Jones, 1821,
vol. II, p. 156.) 3 i.e., nth January, 1604-5.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 15

performed at Southampton House. Carleton wrote a
letter to Chamberlain dated 1 5th January, 1604-5. He
said he had thought he would have had no news to
give his friend. He thought the festivities had been
ended 'but for the enclosed':

it seems we shall have Christmas all the year. . . . The laste
night's revels were kept at my Lord Cranborne's where ye
Quene with ye Duke of Holstein, and a greate parte of the
Court were feasting, and ye like two nights before at my Lord
of Southampton's. . . .

That is, Cranborne's feast was on the i4th January,
Southampton's on the I2th. To return to the entry
of the play in the Revels' List, purporting to give a
list of the plays performed 'before the King,' how could
any clerk come to include Loves Labours Lost, of which
the only thing that he knew was that it was not before
the King ? He neither knew the date nor the place of
its production, and guessed 'betwin New Yeres Day and
Twelfth Night.' How could a contemporary Clerk of
the Revels, paid handsomely to record the performances
before the King, make such an extraordinary blunder?
And what would his chief, the Master of the Revels,
say to him on such an occasion ? The Master would
have to 'reform' his own books in that case. In regard
to the remaining plays, we still have the same uncer-
tainty in regard to their names, but on the King's return
from Royston, his players performed before him on
Candlemas night, that is the 2nd February, said here to
have been 'Euery one in his Umor.'

(n) There is no corroborative evidence that a play
was 'provided and discharged' on the 3rd February.
On the contrary, there is an entry in the Declared
Accounts all to itself:

To John Heming ... on the Counsells Warrant, dated at
the Court at Greenwich 28th day of April 1605 for himself

1 6 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

and the rest of his company for an enterlude or play performed
before the King at Court on 3rd February 1604-5. • • • *n
all £10.

I am aware that there was a possibility that some play
by some other company had been ready for the occasion,
and had been countermanded on the Lord Chamberlain
hearing there was 'some offence in it,' while the ever-
ready Burbage and his company had some other inter-
lude ready, even on the spur of the moment, to take
its place. But if it were so, any real Clerk of the Revels,
entering items to be presented to the Paymaster would
have selected the one that was really performed, and
really was to be paid for. So this must be entered as
among the scribe's errors.

Some notice may be taken of the third column of
the Play List of 1604-5, that of 'The Poets which mayd
the playes.' No such list ever appeared, before or since,
in the 'Revels' Books.' The Master of the Revels had
nothing to do with the plays but to choose them, to
reform them, to produce them. Neither he nor the
Treasurer of the Chamber paid the poets, their own
companies paid them. So what was the use of recording
their names in their bills? It may be remembered
that the officers of the Revels were chosen from well-
educated gentlemen, the Master of the Revels ranked
with the Lieutenant of the Tower. They were in
Court life. The Court spelling of Shakespeare's name
was always the modern one, as they had read it on
his poems, as all Court entries of the time were spelt,
—in the Declared Accounts for 1594, in the patent for
the King's Players in 1603 ; in the grant of red cloth
for the King's Coronation in the Lord Chamberlain's
books. It is true that in some of the Stratford records
we find the name spelt sometimes Shaxsper, once even
Chacksper — in rustic phonetics. In no case, anywhere,
is there a terminal dental sound. I know that Sir
E. Maunde Thompson bravely tries to accept the ' d '

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 17

as a possible flourish of a terminal c e,' but I do not
think he really means this. To me, the affected rusticity
of the style gives a strong proof against the genuineness
of the document.

No other ' Revels Booke ' is preserved until that of
1611-12, and that runs:

The Chardges betwine the last of October 1611 . . . untell
the first of November 1612. . . . The names of the playes
And by what company played them hereafter followeth As
also what Maskes and Triumphes at the Tilts were presented
before the Kings Majestic in this year 1612.

f I \ By the Kings players

(2) The Kings players

(3) The Kings players

(4) The Queen's players
(r ) The Princes players

(6) The King's Players

(7) The Children of
Whitefriars.

By the Queens Players
and the Kings Players

(n) By the Queens Players
(lo) By the Kings Players

Hallamas nyght was presented att Whitehall
before the Kinges Majestic A play called
The Tempest.

The 5th of November A play called ye
Winters nights Tajfle.

On St. Stivenes night A play called a King
or no King, and running at ye Ring.

St. Johns night A play called The City
gallant.

The Sunday followinge a play called The
Almanack.

On New Yeres night, a Play called The
Twinnes Tragidie and running at the Ring.

The Sunday following, A play called Cupid's
Revenge.

Twelfe Night The Princes Maske performed
by Gentlemen of his Houseold and running
at the Ring. This day the King and the
Prince with diuers of his noblemen did
run at the Ring for a Prize.

The Sunday following at Grinwidge, before
the Queen and the prince was played The
Silver Aiedg and ye next night following
Lucrecia.

Candlemas night a play called Tu Coque.
Shroue Sonday A playe called The Nobleman.

1 8 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

( 1 1) By the Duck of Yorks
players

Cl2) By the Lady Elizabeths
' Players

Shroue Monday A playe called Himens
Haliday.

Shroue Teuesday A play called The Proud
Mayds Tragedie.

On the 24th March a Triumph etc.

It may be noted that there are no names of Poets on
this occasion, though two of Shakespeare's plays are
included. The expenses of Masques and Triumphs
were always given on a separate Bill. The perform-
ances of the King's Players before the King are'given
in the Declared Accounts :

To John Hemings . . . and his fellowes the Kings seruants
on a warrant dated Whitehall ist June, 1612, for 6 plays before
his Majestic, one upon the last of October, one upon the ist
of Nouember, one upon the 5th of Nouember, one upon the
26th of December, one upon the fth of January, and one
upon Shroue Sunday at night, being the 23rd of February. . . .

We see there that the season started with an unnamed
play on the 3 ist October, not entered at all by the
Clerk of the Revels (or his substitute) ! How, then,
did the Treasurer of the Chamber come to know of it,
and to pay for it ? This must be reckoned one error
against the scribe that year.

(1) The first play of the list, which should have been
the second, is here called The Tempest. There is no
corroborative support to this statement.

(2) Though there is no support to the date of this
performance, there is proof that The Winter s Tale was
in existence. Simon Forman saw it at the Globe in
the spring before, on I5th May.

(5) The Prince's Players did play on ' the Sunday
following,' which was the 29th December. But they
played not once, but twice, and that on consecutive
nights. The Declared Accounts say : c To Edward
Jubye . . . and the Prince's Players ... for 2 playes

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 19

. . . before his Majestic, one on the 2 8th December
last, and one on the 29th December.' So this is another
play short in the bill and another error against the
scribe. How did the Treasurer of the Chamber come
to know of it and pay for it ?

(6) The King's Players did not play at all on New
Year's Day or Night that year, as may be seen from
the Declared Account. But they did play on the
5th January, which was the Sunday following. So this
is another error against the scribe, if not two.

(7) The Children of Whitefriars did not play before
the King that night, and this particular night, we have
seen above, was booked to the King's Players. A further
error must, therefore, be noted.

(8) The Prince's Masque being performed on Twelfth
Night (a separate performance) the list states that the
Queen's men and the King's men played together at
Greenwich ' the Sunday following The Silver Age of
Heywood.' That Sunday was the 1 2th January. Hey-
wood does state that it took both these companies to
perform some of his plays, but he is referring to public
stages. As the list we are discussing ostensibly records
only the performances before the King (and Queen),
this one should not have been entered at all, as it was
said to be performed before 'the Queen and Prince'
only. That, therefore, is an error. Further, there is
no record from the Declared Accounts of any payments
being given to either the Queen's men or the King's
men on that occasion. There is even a more serious
objection; neither the Queen nor the Prince was at
Greenwich at that date to hear any play. The Queen
had gone to Greenwich the previous November, and
had only left the Palace there on 2oth December to go
back to Whitehall to meet the King coming back from
Royston for the Christmas performances. She had
something else to do before she hurried back again to
Greenwich so soon, and others had to do something.

20 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

Among the expenses of the preparing grooms in the
Declared Account we find that :

Peter Franck was paid ' for making ready the Queen's
Majestys lodgings at Greenwich by the space of 12 dayes,
Mense Januarii 1611-12 ... to making ready the Kings
Majestys lodgings for her Majesty by the space of 8 days
more'' 'then he started making readie rooms for the Princess
Elizabeth over the Kings lodgings ' — all in January. Peter
Franck also * made ready The Chappie and the Closet for her
Majesty at Greenwich, and for altering the great Chamber for
a play ... in February ' he also made * ready Lord's Suffolk's
Lodgings for the King to see a play in February.'

Noting these points we may turn to the Queen's arrange-
ments. There is no proof that Peter Frank started
cleaning right off on New Year's Day ; during twelve
days there are two Sundays on which his men would
not work. (They were not Revels Men.) The Queen
would not think of travelling on Sunday 1 2th to see a
play that night, even if her rooms were ready for her.
The earliest possible day for her to start would be the
1 4th January. I was inclined to reckon it later, from
the amount of preparation, but here a new authority
comes in. Chamberlain wrote one of his gossipy letters
on the 1 5th January, very much dilapidated now, it is
true, having lost an inch off the right-hand margin.
But he seems to say: 'The Q(ueen) is gon already
tow(ards Greenwich). So her progress could not have
started later. Franck would have her own rooms ready
for her, but he had made no preparations in any hall or
chamber for any play before that date. Hey wood's play,
with its numerous characters and extra staging, would
have required extra preparation, trouble and expense.
Chamberlain could not possibly have written a Court
Letter on the ijth without alluding to such a remark-
able performance. So altogether it seems logically
proved that Heywood's play was not performed that
night, and the scribe in error again.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 21

It is certain that the Prince was not in Greenwich
on the 1 2th inst. as the list says. We know from the
Declared Accounts, that he was that night in London,
listening, with his brother and sister, to the Duke
of York's Players under William Rowley. From his
' Book of Expenses ' we know that on the 1 3th, he
received in London £200 in ready money. From
Chamberlain's letter of the I5th we learn : ' The Prince
went thither on Monday ' probably to Greenwich.
Preparations for and performances of plays are recorded
later there. Now this one entry gives us quite a crop
of errors to record against the scribe. No doubt further
study would result in further discoveries, but these errors
are sufficient, to my mind, to prove that no contem-
porary Clerk of the Revels could have made them. It
is only fair to record that Edmund Tilney died in 1610,'
the accounts of that year being drawn up by his executor
Thomas Tilney, and that Sir George Bue was a new
hand at the job. Having tried to put the case against
these two lists as dispassionately as possible, it is neces-
sary for a full understanding, to go back and follow this
' Battle of the Books' point by point.

Discussion rose hot in the early part of the nineteenth
century over the dates of some of Shakespeare's plays.
Malone, who in former years had considered The Tempest
one of Shakespeare's earlier plays, had come to believe
that it was not only written, but performed, in 1611.
He sets his reasons forth in a little booklet, published
1808, called 'some particulars concerning The Tempest*
in which he confesses that the discovery and reading of
Sylvesters Jourdan's 'Tract on the Storm at Bermudas'
and the c True Declaration Concerning the state of the
Colony there,' both dated 1610, made it certain that
Shakespeare wrote this special play at once. He refers
to a previous essay of his own, in which he had proved
(to his own satisfaction) that it was also performed in the
1 See his Will, p. 35.

22 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

year 161 1. A careful examination of all Malone's works
and editions, up to the Variorum Edition of 1821, has
not helped me to find that essay, or even meet ' the
proof in any other article. Miss Latham kindly did
the work over again for my help, with but the same
results.

Into the inner circle of the 'Scholars' there arose a
young man Peter Cunningham, with special oppor-
tunities of testing Shakespeare questions. He had been
given a post in The Audit Office in 1834, he was a
member of the Shakespeare Society, sometime a secre-
tary. His doings may be gleaned from the 'Transac-
tions.' He threw himself with zest into all its interests,
and in 1842 one of his works was published by the
Society, entitled 'Extracts from the Revels Accounts.'
The bulk of it concerned the Sixteenth Century Revels'
Books, and was fairly, not absolutely, accurate. His
great novelty lay in three new Revels' Books of the
seventeenth century, which he claimed to have '•found''
lying about neglected in the underground receptacles
then used for old records. These three papers were the
two above discussed and a third one. They seemed to
still all dispute about the dates of Shakespeare's plays.
So things went on until 1860, Cunningham, though
resigning from the Audit Office, rising in Shakespearian
lore as a recognised critic. Then something happened.
He had kept these three documents in his own posses-
sion, and though 'found' within the precincts of the
Record Office, he had never fitted them into the niche
they should have held there. It is said he had taken
to drink and wanted money. He offered the third
document to Mr. Waller, a bookseller in the Strand,
who purchased it. He offered the two more important
'Books' to the British Museum for sale. They asked
how much he wanted. He seems to have referred to
his friend John Payne Collier (who lived next door),
and to have asked £60. The British Museum Officials

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 23

however, considering the circumstances, thought it
right to impound them, and hand them over to the
authorities at the Record Office to deal with. They
kept them, and recorded the event in the Historical
Manuscript Commission Report for that year.

A storm of comment ran through the literary socie-
ties and papers, and Mr. Waller came forward to restore
to the Record Office the document he had purchased.
The authorities of the date enclosed the three in a sheet
of blue office paper, recording the fa<5t that these docu-
ments having been out of their possession for so long
a time, and on other accounts, could not be held as
authoritative. The suggested suspicion demanded a
succession of examinations by careful scholars, and they
were unanimously pronounced to be forgeries. Cun-
ningham shortly after died. In that stage I first saw
them. But a new stir arose when, in 1879, Halliwell
Phillipps discovered among the Malone MSS. at the
Bodleian, a note which seemed to support the state-
ments of the 1604-5 Play-List. He was in a fever of
perplexity, and did the best thing possible, he printed
the note first in one of his little booklets, then in the
fifth edition of his 'Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare.'

'Malone's Scrap' runs as follows:

1604 and 1605. Ed. Tylney Sunday after Hallowmas Merry
Wyues of Wyndsor perf by the Kings players. Hallamas — in
the Banqueting Hos at Whitehall the Moor of Veins perfd
by the K.s players. — On St Stephens night Mesur for Mesur
by Shaxberd perfd by the K's players. On Innocent's night
Errors by Shaxberd perfd by the K's players. On Sunday
following 'How to learn of a woman to wooe by Hewood
perfd by the Q's players. On New Years night All Fools by
G. Chapman perfd by the Boyes of the Chapel.

Bet New Yrs day and Twelfth day Loues Labour Lost perfd
by the K's players. On the yth Jan Kg Hen the fifth perfd
by the K's players. On Jan 9th Euery one out of his Humour
On Shroue Sunday the Marchant of Veins by Shaxberd perfd
by the K's Prs the same repeated on Shroue Tuesd by the

24 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

K's command. (The play on Shrove Monday is omitted.)
Malone MS. 29.

It was stuck into an album about 1875, where it occu-
pies the centre of a sheet of paper, p. 69, No. 107.
It is not in Malone's handwriting, but many notes were
sent him, or copied for him, so that is not surprising.

It was generally believed at first to have reached the
Bodleian in 1821, when the bulk of his papers went
there, and it seemed very bewildering. I went down
to the Bodleian on purpose to see it, and Mr. Madan
kindly loosened it from its page that I might see the
back. There was no mark of any kind there ; the paper
was half of a large folio sheet, the watermark was cut
in two, and there was no watermark expert in the
Bodleian to gain anything from it. It had been told
me that the transcript had been made so carefully that
the dot over the i in 'Venis' followed the Revels' List
in writing it as 'Veins.' That, however, was soon dis-
proved, for though on the whole the same, the note is
contracted, slightly altered, one entry, the first, put out
of order and one omitted altogether. So the dot merely
points to some habit of the writer, and may be accounted
for in more than one way. Mr. Madan comforted me
not a little by shewing me his catalogue of Additions
to the Western MSS., and by saying that no notice had
been taken of this, among the other MSS., before Halli-
well Phillipps saw it, that it did not seem to have come
among the early MSS. in 1821, but was more likely to
have been among those purchased in 1838 from Mr.
Thomas Rodd, a bookseller with antiquarian tastes in
London. That sheds light on confused ideas, and makes
it possible that the same hand, or at least brain, was
responsible for the writing of both documents, and that
it might have been 'planted' among Mr. Rodd's lot.

The next stage in the history of these three c Revels'
Books' commenced in 1911 when Mr. Ernest Law,
desirous of clearing the character of Peter Cunningham

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 25

and the trustworthiness of his 'extracts,' brought out a
small quarto volume called ' Some Supposed Shakespeare
Forgeries,' in which he states that some great hand-
writing experts had agreed with him and pronounced
these three papers 'genuine.' I am glad that I had the
courage, even then, to come forward alone in support
of my opinion that they were not. Hence followed a
discussion in the 'Athenaeum' during the last half of
1911 and 1912, between Mr. Ernest Law and myself
(writing, for a special reason, under the name of Audi
Alteram Partem). I could not expect to be accepted
by anybody as an 'expert' on handwriting, but I had
fortified my opinion by matters Qifaft. Unfortunately
I made a mistake, just where I least deserved to do so,
in discussing the third document. I had been through
all the Lord Chamberlain's books and his accounts (un-
fortunately lost for the Shakespearian period). I had
already sent to the 'Shakespeare Jahr-Buch' two articles,
one which appeared in 1910 'Shakespeare's Fellows and
Followers,' and a companion paper 'Dramatic Notices
from the Privy Council Register,' which appeared in
the following year. I knew that Charles I had allowed
his players extra payment when they performed at
Hampton Court, on account of their greater expenses
and losses.1

But I forgot, temporarily, that 1636-7 was a plague-
year, and the arrangements of the players, as well as of
others, disorganized thereby. They were obliged to
live near Hampton Court, to avoid bringing infection.
The King paid for their expense incurred thereby, so
they did not receive 'extra money for Hampton Court.'
I discovered this on 25th July, 1911, and wrote off at
once to the Editor, asking him to correct the second
part of my first letter. He decided that it was fairer
to wait until Mr. Law had reached that point, which
he did not do until 29th April, 1912. Then the Editor
1 See D.S.S.P., CAR. I, cccxxxvii (33) 3ist December, 1636.

26 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

printed my self-correclion in the same issue as Mr. Law's.
The whole number of letters (should any one care to
follow) :

'Athenaeum' July 22nd and 29th, 1911, Audi A. P. Sep-
tember 9th, 1 6th and 3oth, 1911, pp. 291, 324, 388, E. Law.
Odober yth, 1911, Audi, etc., p. 422. April 6th, 1912, p.
390, E. Law. April 2yth, 1912, p. 469, Audi. Same issue,
p. 470, E. Law. August loth, 1912, p. 143, Audi.

The Editor then closed the discussion.

In 1920 when I had completed and handed over to
the Press my c Life of Southampton,' I returned to
Shakespeare-Study proper. I found that Mr. Law had
written a second quarto volume nominally reporting
the discussion, called ' More About Some Supposed
Shakespeare Forgeries.' This was so full of miscon-
ceptions that I felt it necessary for the benefit of other
students to restate my case, calmly, clearly, without
personalities, or irrelevances which always cloud air
which should be kept clear for the keen eyes of critical
readers. I spent six months in going through all the
details again, chiefly in the Record Office, and my
Statement appeared in 'The Times Literary Supple-
ment,' 2nd December, 1920, and on 24th February,
1921. Between these dates Mr. Law wrote on 23rd
and 3oth December, 1920, and on i/th January, 1921.
I had not written to discuss Mr. Law's books ; but to
point out to fellow-students the discrepancies between
the ' Revels' Books ' andfatfs.

One list remains to be considered. The Editor of
' The Times Literary Supplement ' thought my State-
ment quite long enough, and refused to include the
third 'Revels' Book,' that of 1636-7. This is much
less important than the other two, because it refers to a
period after Shakespeare's death, and only throws light
on his continued popularity. But it was important to
discuss it — nobody else had done so — and it remains a

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 27

peculiar relic of past literary history. It also was one
of the three documents 'found' by and associated with
Mr. Peter Cunningham. This third document, formerly
called loosely a 'Revels' Book' had much less right to
the title than the other two. It consisted of three
documents, loose, which had never been attached to
each other (at the time I first saw them). The first is
a genuine warrant, signed by Philip, Earl of Pembroke
and Montgomery as Lord Chamberlain, granting the
players extra payment for extra service, their work
having begun for the three previous years, 1632-5, in
September, instead of on the 3ist October, as they had
been wont to do. This warrant is dated 25th May,
1636. Another is a genuine Warrant, signed by the
same nobleman, to pay to Lowen and Taylor for them-
selves and the other members of the King's company
for performing 21 plays, at £ 10 each, and one play,
called 'The Royal Slave,' for which they were to receive
the large allowance of £30, in all £240. On this paper
is signed Eyllardt Swanston's signature for three part-
payments, the whole not having been received by him
until 5th June, 1638. The third document is a list
purporting to give the names of these 22 plays (the
name of only one being mentioned in the warrant).

There is a remarkable paucity of material concern-
ing the stage during the particular year of 1636-7.
Chroniclers fail to take notice of it, their attention
being absorbed by greater things, the old gossipy corre-
spondents seemed to have died out, and few successors
followed. The declared Accounts of the Treasurer of
Chamber are lost in both departments, the Pipe Office
and the Audit Office, the first for the whole period, the
second for that special year. Ordinary diarists failed
to notice the points we now want. But we find one
successor of Chamberlain, White, and Pory in Edward
Rossingham ; one notice in Archbishop's Laud's
Diary ; one source of information of the greatest

28 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

importance which has never been worked through
for this purpose, I mean The MS. Registers of the
Privy Council now at the Record Office. And there is
one which should have told us more than it does. Sir
Henry Herbert, the acting Master of the Revels for
many years, afterwards the real 'Master' with all the
dignities of the office, kept a very rough diary of notes
of the performances. Malone saw this and included its
materials, saying ' Herbert does not furnish us with a
regular list of plays, but such as he gave, I give'
Var. Ed., 1821, Prol. Ill, pp. 228, 239). After that
Herbert's Diary was lost.1

The List of the ' Revels' Book ' differs materially
from that gleaned from Herbert by Malone. It may
be read in Peter Cunningham's ' Extracts from the
Revels' Accounts,' 1842. But it is difficult to point
out discrepancies without having a transcript before
our eyes ; so that I provide one, as I did with the other
Lists, adding my own numerals for reference, and dis-
tinguishing the plays not mentioned by Herbert by
printing them in italics. No 'Account' is associated
with its paper, and the performances recorded do not
begin on the 3151 October as they were wont to do, not
even in September (the new date), but from the Spring
of 1636, probably because these had been left unpaid.
The list is separated into three parts by two horizontal
lines, the first following the 5th May, 1636, the second
following 24th January, 1636-7:

PLAYES ACTED BEFORE THE KING AND QUEEN, THIS PRESENT
YEAR OF THE LORD, 1636.

(1) Easter Monday, at the Cockpitt the first part of Arviragus.

(2) Easter Tuesday at the Cockpitt the second part of Arviragus.

(3) The list April at the Cockpitt, The Silent Woman.

1 Malone's Preface, p. 410, thanks Francis Ingram of Ribbesford,
Esq., for this valuable book and several other curious papers.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 29

(4) The $th of May at the Blackfriars for the Queen and the Prince
Eleffor Alfonso.

(5) The \~]th Nouember at Hampton Court The Coxcombe.

(6) The i qth of Nouember at Hampton Court Beggars Bushe.

(7) The zyth of Nouember at Hampton Court The Maid's Tragedy.

(8) The 6th of December at Hampton Court The Loyall Subjeff.

(9) The %th of December at Hampton Court the Moore of Venise.
(10) The i6th December at Hampton Court Loues Pilgrimage.

(n)St. Stephen's Daye at Hampton Court the ist Part of
Arviragus.

(12) St. Johns Daye at Hampton Court the 2nd Part of Arviragus.

(13) ist Day of January at Hampton Court Loue and Honor.

(14) 5th January at Hampton Court The Elder Brother.

(15) loth January at Hampton Court the King or no King.

( 1 6) The 1 2th January at Hampton Court The new play from

Oxford called The Royal Slaue.

(17) The 17 'th January at Hampton Court Rollo.

(18) The 24th January at Hampton Court Hamlett. (really Rollo.)

(19) The 3 ist January at St. James The Tragidie of Cesar.

(20) The 9th February at St. James The wife for a month.

(21) The 1 6th February at St. James The Gouernor. (Herbert

says it was on the 17 th.}

(22) The 2 ist February at St. James, Philaster.

Those entries italicised do not appear in Herbert's note-
book, and are not supported by any other authority.
Herbert gives the two first as on the i8th and I9th
April, 1636, which were Easter Monday and Tuesday,
and that they were before the King, Queen, Princes,
and Prince Elector. He does not mention the entry of
the 2 ist April or that of 5th May, possibly because
neither were before the King. The latter is here stated
to have been before the Queen and Prince Elector, the
former may also have been so.

30 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

It is remarkable that Herbert skips all the others
down to the :

(n) '26th of December, The first part of Arviragus' again.

(13) Herbert says 'Loue and Honor on New years night! Sunday

'The Revels' List' says 'Day.'

(14) Herbert says 'The Elder Brother' on Thursday the 5th

January. .

( 1 6) The Royal Slaue on Thursday the I2th of January, Oxford
Play, Cartright's. The King gave him ^40.

Herbert gives no play on i yth January and only

(18) 'Rollo the 24th Janua.' No allusion to Hamlet, and no name
of place.

The four last Herbert supports, though he (or Malone)
gives i/th instead of i6th. Herbert adds two plays by
Beeston's Boys which would not have been included in
the list of the King's Players performances before him-
self. It is, therefore, only possible for us further to
discuss here the entries not made in italics (though
something even may be said of them). There are, there-
fore, only thirteen out of twenty-two. Through the
Register of the Privy Council we can glean some details
as to where the King was at given dates. We know
thence that after his progress in the summer and autumn
of 1636, while the Queen was still at Oatlands, the King
went over for three days to Windsor Castle to be present
there at a Council Meeting, apparently arranging to
travel the day before, to leave a whole day free for the
meeting and to leave the day after. He afterwards spent
the close of September and the whole of October at
Windsor Castle (with a flying visit to Newmarket).
In normal years the season of 'performances' might have
begun by that time. We do not know whether there
were facilities for such festivities at Windsor, or if any
took place there. It is probable some did. We do
know that the Privy Council met at Windsor on the
5th November, the King being present^ on the 6th and

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 31

7th, on 1 3th November the King being present. A
Royal Grant was dated at Hampton Court on the
1 9th November, but the Index of the Privy Signed
Bills is lost, and the ordinary Royal Seal might have
been used by permission 'for the King.' Such grants
were issued all that year at least 'from Westminster'
whether the King was there or not. On the 2/th
November the King was present at a Council at
Windsor, and business overflowed into the three follow-
ing days. On 4th and 5th December the King was
present at a meeting there, the business going on again
until the 9th, there. The first Council Meeting at
Hampton Court was on the i ith December, the King
being absent. Nicholas, the Secretary of State, wrote
a letter from Windsor on the i4th, saying that he was
going to Hampton Court on the i7th for the Council
Meeting. The first at which the King was recorded
as present was that on the i8th at Hampton Court.
All these affect the entries in the Play List. They
cannot all be correft. From Secretary Nicholas's letters
we see that a Council Meeting meant three days at
least (p. 128). In those short days, though the two
palaces were not far off, the King evidently did not
risk driving or riding about on the bad roads in the
dark, even to see a play.

At this Council Meeting of the i8th December at
Hampton Court the King put off all business till
Twelfth Day, but there seems to have been a minor
Council Meeting on the 3ist December at Hampton
Court. While throwing doubt on the earlier entries
in Cunningham's documents, the Privy Council makes
possible those of Herbert's note-book, who gives none
on the 1 7th January, and on the 24th gives no locality
and Rollo instead of Hamlet. We must go back to
another even more important discrepancy concerning
Twelfth Night. There was a Council Meeting on that
day, where the press of business was carried over to the

32 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

7th, 8th, Qth, and loth. Here I must make a long
digression into the fortunes of the special play they
were all waiting to see. Though the diarists of the
the time are few, Archbishop Laud was one of them,
and concerned himself with that special play. He was
Chancellor of the University of Oxford when the King
and Queen went thither on their summer progress of

1636. The University presented before their Majesties
a play called The Persian Slave, or The Royal Slave, by
Cartwright. The Queen liked it so well, that she
begged the loan of the play, and the dresses, to see
if her own players would perform it so well. The
University was very unwilling to do this, but the
Archbishop persuaded them to yield, and sent the play,
the clothes, and the Perspectives of the Stage to the Queen.
Laud says that the play was performed at Hampton
Court in November, and that all said 'that the Queen's
Players came short of the University actors.'1

Though I humbly desired of the King and Queen that
neither the Play, nor Clothes, nor Stage, might come in the
hands and use of the common players abroad.

Doubtless that aroused the King's men to wish to try
if they could not succeed better. Evidently the King
gave them the chance to do so, for he allowed them
£154 for extra expenses, dancers, and other attractions.
The exacl: date is given in the Lord Chamberlain's
Accounts and the Royal Warrants, April, 1637.*

Though, as I noticed, the old news-writers had gone,
others had risen up. One of them, George Garrard,
writing to Lord Deputy Wentworth, on 7th February,

1637, says:

Edward Rossingham is successor to John Pory and is the
best-known writer of news we have, a very honest man, as

1 Laud's Diary ii, 104, * D.S.S.P. ccclii, 53.

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 33

your Lordship knows. It seems he was, and is employed by
Sir Thomas Puckering.1

Now this very Edward Rossingham, writing to Sir
Thomas Puckering at York on nth January, 1636-7,

says :

On Tuesday (the 3rd) this last week their Majesties came
to Somerset House to lodge there. Wednesday the 4th
Morning the King went to Arundel House to see the rarities
brought from Germany. . . . Upon Twelfth Night the 6th
The Royal Slave . . . brought from Oxford, was acted by the
King's Players at Hampton Court.

This Edward Rossingham was a man who might have
made mistakes in his prognostications as to what the
King was about to do (for he and the Queen often
changed their plans), but he was in a position to be
perfe6lly certain about what they had publicly done.
So we may say we know tbat the King had seen '•The
Royal S/ave on Twelfth Night.' But the Play List
says that he saw it on the iath January, and Rossing-
ham writes on the i ith (?) : 'I know there is a double
difficulty here.' Malone, transcribing Herbert's Diary,
also says it was 'played on the I2th of January.' We
can hardly expecl: that Herbert himself could have
made that statement, but we could very well believe
it of Malone. Cunningham frequently complains of
Malone's inaccuracies towards the end of his life, when
he began to lose his sight. He very well might have
misread Twelfth Night into Twelfth January. The
strong logic of contemporary events supports Rossing-
ham. The King was certainly at Hampton Court on
Twelfth Night, tired with a heavy day's Council work,
and needing recreation. He had been accustomed to
see a play on that night. The players were accustomed
to play then (they were not accustomed to play on

1 B. M. MS. 7042, ib also end. See also Birch's MSS., Sloane MS.
4297.

34 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS

'Twelfth January') and their great play would be ready
for the notable night.

The next Council Meeting was on the 1 2th January,
1636-7, the place not being noted in the Register. But
there was another Council Meeting the next day, the
1 3th January, and that is definitely stated to have been
in The Star Chamber, London. It is more than likely
the two consecutive meetings were held in the same
place, and that the King came up to London on the
iith to be ready for the I2th and I3th, at which he
was noted as 'present.'

The discrepancies concerning these performances
(gleaned so laboriously) make me feel anew that no
contemporary writer could have invented them; and
that the third Play List of the seventeenth century comes
into the same category as the first and second.

It may be said — Cui Bono? — I felt that I owed it to
succeeding students, who got into Doubting Castle, to
give them the key by which alone they could escape,
and find their way back into the straight path of work.
One good scholar, Mr. F. Card Fleay, has already
borne the strain. In his ' History of Dramatic Litera-
ture,' edition 1590, p. 173, he says of the writers of
the seventeenth century Play Lists : ' I wish that those
who blame, may not waste years of work, as I have
done, in unravelling their tangled web of deceit.' Un-
fortunately he did not give his method or his discoveries
to the world, and I have had to do it over again.

The need is great. Many writers have followed
Cunningham. Among the chief, I may note that Mr.
Lawrence discussing with Mr. Greg wrote ('Times
Literary Supplement,' 26th February, 1920). 'Com-
panies sometimes united to save doubling. The Revels'
Account will shew him that in January, 1612, the
King's men and the Queen's men united to play The
Silver Age at Court. On this score I would draw his
attention to Professor Quincy Adams' important paper

OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 35

on "Shakespeare, Hey wood, and the Classics" in
"Modern Language Notes" for June, 1919, which satis-
factorily substantiates Mr. Ernest Law's arguments as
to the genuineness of the Revels' Documents of 1612.'

My closing question is : Are we justified in accept-
ing as sole evidence in a highly controversial question,
the testimony of one part of a document when other
parts of that document have been proved to be false ?

Terminal Abstract only (see p. 21).

THE WILL OF EDMUND TYLNEY ESQ. OF LEATHERHEAD,
Surrey, Master of the Revels to King James (Wingfield
no P.C.C.) ist day of July 1610. After the usual religious
forms devoutly expressed, he leaves his body to be buried in
the Parish Church of Streatham in the said county of Surrey,
near to the monument of my father, who was buried there
long since. I wish to be buried without any pomp, but a
funeral sermon for which is to be paid forty shillings to the
preacher and forty shillings to the Church. A monument is
to be creeled on the place which I have fixed with the parson
and the Churchwardens. It was agreed to be finished within
six months after my decease and fixed at the cost of 20 marks,
as I have agreed with the stonecutter near Charing Cross to
pay him. I bequeath { all my apparel, on which I have spent
much money very vainly which might have been better em-
ployed,' I will my overseers to sell to their best value, and
the money distributed among the poor of their parishes of
Leatherhead and Streatham. To thirteen poor old men and
women whom I have hitherto helped weekly, I leave a black
frieze gown and five shillings in money. Whereas I stand
bound in a bond of j£ioo to pay to Margaret Cartwright
widow, an annuity of j£io, if she survive me, I will that my
executors pay her ^50 down and take a receipt. If she die
before me, 1 will that the said £50 be paid to Anne Hassard,
wife of Robert Hassard, Junior, for her care and kindness to
me during my sickness. And 1 bequeath unto my said cousin
Robert Hassard and her £100 between them, and to her the
whole furniture of the bedroom which she ordinarily used with
bed and bed hangings and bed furniture and a suitable allow-
ance of pewter and silver and linen for their housekeeping, and

36 THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS.

I bequeathe to their son my godson Edmond Hassard £60,
and their daughter Anne Hassard £20, by way of legacy. I
bequeath unto the reparacion of the Stone Bridge at Leather-
head £100 to be paid if they are finished within one year after
my decease, or else, as the Sessions of Kingston have laid the
re-edification of the bridge upon the whole shire, in the
manner decided on by a properly impanelled jury. I bequeathe
unto Frederick Tylney my godson son of Thomas Tylney
£200, to be employed by his mother on his behalf, until he
come of age. And I bequeath to Mr. Rabbit, Parson of
Streatham, and Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Parson of Ashstead by
Leatherhead my two overseers for their pains, all my Books to
be divided between them and a great Silver bowl with a cover
to each of them. To all my old Servants a years wages apiece,
and to Roger Chambers, who waiteth on me in my Chamber
five pounds in money. I will that the house 1 dwell in at
Leatherhead, with all its appurtances and furniture and all the
grounds belonging thereto, shall be sold to its best value for
these uses, and beyond any legacies that I may make on my
deathbed by word of mouth, before two witnesses, all the
remainder of the plate and the money that shall belong to me
to the will and use of Thomas Tylney Esquire of Shelley co.
Suffolk, whom I make my Executor, and for his aid and
assistance Thomas Goodman of Leatherhead to whom I leave
for his pains 40 ounces of Silver Plate. Proved by Thomas
Tylney Executor before the proper authorities the ryth day
of Odober, 1610.

This becomes intensely important to us, not only in
regard to the man who was so much concerned with
the Revels, but in regard to him who had the duty of
reforming Shakespeare's plays.

The De La More Press Ltd., 10 Clifford St., Bond St., W. i

PUBLISHED BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

* THE SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY

Under the General Editorship of SIR ISRAEL GOLLANCZ

The Shakespeare Classics

Being reprints of the sources and originals of Shakespeare's plays. 8vo (7 x 5-5).
Quarter bound, antique grey boards. 3$. 6d. net each.

1. THE CHRONICLE HISTORY OF KING LEIR; edited

by Sir SIDNEY LEE.

2. THE TAMING OF A SHREW; edited by F. S. BOAS.

, 4. SHAKESPEARE'S PLUTARCH ; edited by Professor

C. F. TUCKER BROOKE. (2 vols.)

$. THE SOURCES fcf ANALOGUES OF A MIDSUMMER

NIGHT'S DREAM ; edited by FRANK SIDGWICK.

6. LODGE'S ROSALYNDE ; edited by W. W. GREG.

7. GREENE'S PANDOSTO, OR DORASTUS 6f FAWNIA;

edited by P. G. THOMAS.

8. BROOKE'S ROMEUS &f JULIET; edited by J. J. MUNRO.

9. THE TROUBLESOME REIGN OF KING JOHN;

edited by F. J. FURNIVALL and J. }. MUNRO.

10. THE MENAECHMI : The Latin Text together with the

Elizabethan Translation ; edited by W. H. D. ROUSE, Litt.D.

IT. RICH'S APOLONIUS &f SILLA ; edited by MORTON LUCK.
12. THE LEGEND OF HAMLET; by Sir I. GOLLANCZ. With

the story of Hamlet as told by Saxo Grammaticus and Belforest. The originals
with English translations. 'Nearly ready.

The Old Spelling Shakespeare

Being the Works of Shakespeare in the Spelling of the best Quarto and Folio
Texts. Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL and W. G. BOSWELL-STONE. 8vo (8^x 6J).
Parchment, 5$. net each. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net each. 17 volumes now ready.

The Lamb Shakespeare for the Young

Based on Lamb's Tales, with Passages and Scenes inserted from the Plays,

and Songs set to Music ; illustrated by HELEN STRATTON. 8vo (7^ x 5^).

Leather, 2s. 6d. net each ; Cloth, is. 6d. net each ; Limp Cloth, is. net each.

I o volumes now ready.

ROBERT LANEHAM'S LETTER : describing a part of

the Entertainment unto Queen Elizabeth at the Castle of Kenilworth in 1575.
Edited with an Introduction by F. J. FURNIVALL. 8vo (9 x 6). 55. net.

Full Prospectus on application to the publishers, Oxford University Press,
Amen Corner, London, E.G. Of all Booksellers.

Stopes, Charlotte Carmicha&L

The seventeenth century
accounts of the Master of the
Revels

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY